Suppr超能文献

我们是否明智地选择了多发性骨髓瘤自体干细胞移植的动员方案:GCSF+/-plerixafor 与环磷酰胺/GCSF+/-plerixafor 的单中心比较。

Are we choosing mobilization regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma wisely: A single center comparison of GCSF+/-plerixafor vs cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor.

机构信息

Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Apher. 2022 Aug;37(4):348-353. doi: 10.1002/jca.21976. Epub 2022 Feb 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard consolidation treatment for eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). There is no standardized mobilization regimen for collection of CD34+ stem cells, which is crucial to the success of ASCT. Cyclophosphamide/GCSF is an effective regimen, although reported associated toxicities include risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Since plerixafor was introduced in Canada, this mobilization agent has been increasingly used as needed with GCSF at Kingston Health Science Centre (KHSC), with elimination of cyclophosphamide. This single center, retrospective, quality improvement study evaluates mobilization and ASCT outcomes of MM patients who had undergone stem cell mobilization at KHSC with cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor without antibiotics, cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor with antibiotics, and GCSF+/-plerixafor without antibiotics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted evaluating 137 patients. The primary outcome measure was FN rates with mobilization. Balancing measures include CD34+ cell collected, plerixafor usage, days of apheresis and transplant outcomes. Chi-square, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis methods were used to test statistical significance where appropriate.

RESULTS

Our study noted a higher total and day one CD34+ count in the two groups utilizing cyclophosphamide in mobilization. All nine cases of FN occurred in these two groups (P < .05). Addition of antibiotics decreased, but did not eliminate risk of FN. There were no significant differences in the rate of plerixafor usage and number of apheresis days. Difference in transplant outcomes, including engraftment and transfusion support, were statistically but not clinically significant. A larger sample size may be needed to explore this fully. There was no significant difference in length of transplant hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The elimination of cyclophosphamide from mobilization regimens for MM appears to significantly reduce FN rates, without increasing balancing measures such as total number of apheresis days, plerixafor usage, duration of transplant hospitalization or mortality outcomes.

摘要

背景

自体干细胞移植(ASCT)是多发性骨髓瘤(MM)患者的标准巩固治疗方法。目前尚无收集 CD34+干细胞的标准化动员方案,这对 ASCT 的成功至关重要。环磷酰胺/粒细胞集落刺激因子(GCSF)是一种有效的方案,尽管有报道称其相关毒性包括发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)的风险。自从普乐沙福在加拿大上市以来,金斯顿健康科学中心(KHSC)在需要时越来越多地使用 GCSF 联合或不联合普乐沙福来动员,而不使用环磷酰胺。这项单中心、回顾性、质量改进研究评估了在 KHSC 接受环磷酰胺/GCSF+/-普乐沙福(无抗生素)、环磷酰胺/GCSF+/-普乐沙福(有抗生素)和 GCSF+/-普乐沙福(无抗生素)进行干细胞动员和 ASCT 的 MM 患者的动员和 ASCT 结果。

方法

对 137 例患者进行回顾性图表审查。主要结局测量指标是动员时 FN 的发生率。平衡措施包括收集的 CD34+细胞数、普乐沙福的使用、单采天数和移植结局。适当情况下使用卡方检验、方差分析或 Kruskal-Wallis 方法进行统计显著性检验。

结果

我们的研究注意到在使用环磷酰胺动员的两组中,总 CD34+计数和第 1 天 CD34+计数更高。所有 9 例 FN 均发生在这两组(P<.05)。添加抗生素降低了 FN 的风险,但没有消除 FN 的风险。普乐沙福的使用率和单采天数无显著差异。移植结局,包括植入和输血支持,在统计学上但在临床上无显著差异。可能需要更大的样本量来充分探讨这一点。移植住院时间无显著差异。

结论

从 MM 的动员方案中去除环磷酰胺似乎显著降低了 FN 发生率,而不会增加平衡措施,如单采天数、普乐沙福使用、移植住院时间或死亡率。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验